Literature DB >> 25245322

Outcomes of genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes in unaffected individuals.

Shanna L Gustafson1, Victoria M Raymond, Monica L Marvin, Tobias Else, Erika Koeppe, Elena M Stoffel, Jessica N Everett.   

Abstract

Genetic testing (GT) for inherited cancer predisposition is most informative when initiated in individuals with cancer, thus standard practice recommends GT start in an affected individual. This strategy can be frustrating for unaffected consultands and providers. Retrospective review of cases was performed to compare outcomes of testing the unaffected consultand and recommending that testing start in an affected relative. Records from cancer-free consultands (N = 101), presenting to the University of Michigan Cancer Genetics Clinic between 6/1/2011 and 12/30/2011 were reviewed. All genetics records for these consultands were reviewed through 3/31/2013 for GT recommendations (117 total). The unaffected consultand was offered testing in 14.5 % of cases, testing was completed in 64.7 % of these with one mutation identified. Of consultands tested initially, 70.5 % received cancer-screening recommendations based on family history and test results. Testing was recommended to start in an affected family member in 30.7 % of cases. Fifty percent returned to clinic with information on an affected family member; 83.3 % documented that their family member underwent GT with one mutation identified. Consultands reported the affected family member refused testing in 22.2 % and two of these consultands subsequently pursued GT, identifying one mutation. Fifty percent of cases where testing the family member first was recommended were lost to follow-up with 66.6 % of these never given cancer-screening recommendations. Cancer genetic risk evaluation of healthy consultands should consider the option of pursuing GT in the unaffected consultand and should implement a plan for tailored risk management in the absence of informative genetic evaluation within the family.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25245322     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-014-9756-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  24 in total

1.  Decision-making about genetic testing among women at familial risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  P B Jacobsen; H B Valdimarsdottier; K L Brown; K Offit
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.312

2.  Concise handbook of familial cancer susceptibility syndromes - second edition.

Authors:  Noralane M Lindor; Mary L McMaster; Carl J Lindor; Mark H Greene
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2008

3.  Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not.

Authors:  Maria C Katapodi; Laurel Northouse; Penny Pierce; Kara J Milliron; Guipeng Liu; Sofia D Merajver
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 4.  Cancer-related direct-to-consumer advertising: a critical review.

Authors:  Emily Z Kontos; K Viswanath
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  What's the message? Interpretation of an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result for women at risk of familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Sandra van Dijk; Wilma Otten; Daniëlle R M Timmermans; Christi J van Asperen; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Aad Tibben; Martijn H Breuning; Job Kievit
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Communicating BRCA1/2 genetic test results within the family: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Caroline Dancyger; Mel Wiseman; Chris Jacobs; Jonathan A Smith; Melissa Wallace; Susan Michie
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2011-07-28

8.  Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Kristin Anderson; Judith S Jacobson; Daniel F Heitjan; Joshua Graff Zivin; Dawn Hershman; Alfred I Neugut; Victor R Grann
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: a multicenter, prospective study.

Authors:  Noah D Kauff; Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Mark E Robson; Johanna Lee; Judy E Garber; Claudine Isaacs; D Gareth Evans; Henry Lynch; Rosalind A Eeles; Susan L Neuhausen; Mary B Daly; Ellen Matloff; Joanne L Blum; Paul Sabbatini; Richard R Barakat; Clifford Hudis; Larry Norton; Kenneth Offit; Timothy R Rebbeck
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Genetic testing for lynch syndrome in individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer in their relatives.

Authors:  Ralph Coates; Marc Williams; Stephanie Melillo; Jim Gudgeon
Journal:  PLoS Curr       Date:  2011-07-06
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Proposed Terminology and Classification of Pre-Malignant Neoplastic Conditions: A Consensus Proposal.

Authors:  Peter Valent; Cem Akin; Michel Arock; Christoph Bock; Tracy I George; Stephen J Galli; Jason Gotlib; Torsten Haferlach; Gregor Hoermann; Olivier Hermine; Ulrich Jäger; Lukas Kenner; Hans Kreipe; Ravindra Majeti; Dean D Metcalfe; Alberto Orfao; Andreas Reiter; Wolfgang R Sperr; Philipp B Staber; Karl Sotlar; Charles Schiffer; Giulio Superti-Furga; Hans-Peter Horny
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2017-11-26       Impact factor: 8.143

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.